PDA

View Full Version : A Shot At Bagley



hallcity
03-20-2018, 03:51 PM
The Oregonian is out with a piece (http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/page/the_loyalty_game.html) implying a lot more than they can prove about Marvin Bagley.

drummerdevil
03-20-2018, 03:56 PM
There is not much of a story there... someone just wants clicks when people say "hey, Marvin Bagley got paid by Nike!" There are many other possible explanations that they don't delve into. This is kind of pathetic.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
03-20-2018, 04:02 PM
Weird article. Yes, it is full of insinuations, but seems to be more about "why is this legal" as opposed to "these people are cheating."

If the situation is as described, all the more reason to overhaul the sport and bring things out of the shadows.

CDu
03-20-2018, 04:50 PM
There is not much of a story there... someone just wants clicks when people say "hey, Marvin Bagley got paid by Nike!" There are many other possible explanations that they don't delve into. This is kind of pathetic.

I suspect that the simplest explanation is likely the accurate one, but...


Weird article. Yes, it is full of insinuations, but seems to be more about "why is this legal" as opposed to "these people are cheating."

If the situation is as described, all the more reason to overhaul the sport and bring things out of the shadows.

This. I think the gist of the article is the funding club teams run by star recruits’ parents appears to be the legal(?) way shoe companies are funneling money to star recruits, and questioning why that is ok. It is less about Bagley as it is about the system - Bagley is just the example used.

JasonEvans
03-20-2018, 05:35 PM
You know what they call a $750k house in So Cal? The servant's quarters.

That said, this article points out a number of problems with the current amateur sports model when it comes to basketball. I doubt Marvin's story is different from scores of top prospects. I know dads/brothers/uncles of top players coach many AAU programs. What's more, the article makes no mention at all of any inducement to go to Duke. I'm seeing a whole lot of nothing here.

arnie
03-20-2018, 05:47 PM
You know what they call a $750k house in So Cal? The servant's quarters.

That said, this article points out a number of problems with the current amateur sports model when it comes to basketball. I doubt Marvin's story is different from scores of top prospects. I know dads/brothers/uncles of top players coach many AAU programs. What's more, the article makes no mention at all of any inducement to go to Duke. I'm seeing a whole lot of nothing here.

I’ll disagree. If the Bagley family relocation facts are real (and that’s a big if), this appears much bigger than say the Lance Thomas jewelry heist. Supposedly doesn’t matter if Duke involved and the “everyone does this” excuse shouldn’t fly if NCAA honestly believes what they say. I’m the end, you may be right and nothing comes of it; but if article is true, couldn’t NCAA impose penalties including forfeiting season wins?

Troublemaker
03-20-2018, 05:57 PM
I’ll disagree. If the Bagley family relocation facts are real (and that’s a big if), this appears much bigger than say the Lance Thomas jewelry heist. Supposedly doesn’t matter if Duke involved and the “everyone does this” excuse shouldn’t fly if NCAA honestly believes what they say. I’m the end, you may be right and nothing comes of it; but if article is true, couldn’t NCAA impose penalties including forfeiting season wins?

If you're concerned about that, the key paragraph from the article is this:

As private businesses, most club teams don't disclose their finances publicly. Tracing the flow of shoe company money is nearly impossible unless the grassroots teams choose to disclose it.

And the NCAA doesn't have subpoena power. Duke should be fine.

And all that is assuming that the dots the article is trying to connect really DO connect. There is obviously more than one reason why a family could, in 4 years time, move into a nicer neighborhood.

CDu
03-20-2018, 06:00 PM
You know what they call a $750k house in So Cal? The servant's quarters.

That said, this article points out a number of problems with the current amateur sports model when it comes to basketball. I doubt Marvin's story is different from scores of top prospects. I know dads/brothers/uncles of top players coach many AAU programs. What's more, the article makes no mention at all of any inducement to go to Duke. I'm seeing a whole lot of nothing here.

He doesn’t have to be induced to go to Duke for him to be ineligible. If the NCAA finds that his amateur status was compromised, he would be ruled ineligible.

That being said, I think the article is more about exposing the “loopholes” that shoe companies are using to essentially pay players. It is less about saying “Bagley cheated” and more about “look, shoe companies are still finding ways to pay players.”

It definitely isn’t a lot of nothing. Whether or not rules were broken, I don’t know. My hope is no. But the story almost certainly isn’t nothing. It is an expose on the shenanigans that go on with shoe companies, and how the rules are very blurry.

CDu
03-20-2018, 06:06 PM
If you're concerned about that, the key paragraph from the article is this:

As private businesses, most club teams don't disclose their finances publicly. Tracing the flow of shoe company money is nearly impossible unless the grassroots teams choose to disclose it.

And the NCAA doesn't have subpoena power. Duke should be fine.

And all that is assuming that the dots the article is trying to connect really DO connect. There is obviously more than one reason why a family could, in 4 years time, move into a nicer neighborhood.

I totally agree that this isn’t likely to becone a problem for Duke. But I do suspect that the move to the nicer neighborhood is heavily linked to Nike. It is the simplest, most plausible explanation.

As you said, the fact that Nike Phamily is private and the rules are blurred anyway makes it highly unlikely that Bagley would ever be found ineligible. And it certainly isn’t a Duke issue beyond his eligibility. But I think it brings to light just how insidious the shoe companies are in all of this, and how gray the amateur status can be.

Ian
03-20-2018, 06:13 PM
It also point to how pointless the "amateur" status requirement is, there is always is a way to get money to people you want to give money to.

kAzE
03-20-2018, 06:17 PM
I'm not clicking on that . . . that's exactly what they want people to do.

CDu
03-20-2018, 06:22 PM
It also point to how pointless the "amateur" status requirement is, there is always is a way to get money to people you want to give money to.

Yep. There is basically little way to prove that (assiming he got paid by Nike, which seems a reasonable assumption) Bagley Jr (MB3’s dad) was paid simply because of MB3’s bball ability. He was the director and coach of a private club team sponsored by Nike in Nike’s league. That isn’t terribly different (in fact, arguably less shady) than Michael Jr and Jontay’s dad getting hired as an assistant coach at Missouri. It is most assuredly tied to the abilities of the talented son(s), but good luck proving it legally. At least in Bagley’s case, it had nothing to do with Duke. Still shady, but probably not illegal.

But again, the point of the article isn’t to say that Bagley should be ineligible, but rather to emphasize that there are still plenty of ways the shoe companies can pull shenanigans.

weezie
03-20-2018, 06:51 PM
I'm not clicking on that . . . that's exactly what they want people to do.


Exactly.

proelitedota
03-20-2018, 07:03 PM
I am all for players and their families finding loop holes in making money on the players abilities without compromising their amateur status. We shouldn't be holding arbitrary NCAA rules and regulations in high standards when they don't have any basis on morale or legal grounds.

jv001
03-20-2018, 07:36 PM
I am all for players and their families finding loop holes in making money on the players abilities without compromising their amateur status. We shouldn't be holding arbitrary NCAA rules and regulations in high standards when they don't have any basis on morale or legal grounds.

When the cheats cheated and got away with it, I took the attitude of I don't care if they all cheat. The NCAA lost all respect in my view. I can't wait for a cheat fan to tell me that the Bagley family took money. Ill just say, good for them. GoDuke!

Hingeknocker
03-20-2018, 10:07 PM
I'm mystified as to why the shoe companies are the ones who get labeled "insidious" in all of this. We all realize that the NCAA could wipe away every concern by just saying, "we allow this now." Pick any negative adjective you want out of the thesaurus; they all apply to the NCAA.

rsvman
03-20-2018, 10:39 PM
Wait, so if one of the reasons the shoe companies give big money to the families is to entice them to go to "Nike schools," how is it, exactly, that Zion, an Adidas kid, decided to come to Duke, which is a "Nike school"?

mph
03-21-2018, 06:32 AM
Wait, so if one of the reasons the shoe companies give big money to the families is to entice them to go to "Nike schools," how is it, exactly, that Zion, an Adidas kid, decided to come to Duke, which is a "Nike school"?

8218

BLPOG
03-21-2018, 09:23 AM
It also point to how pointless the "amateur" status requirement is, there is always is a way to get money to people you want to give money to.

It makes you wonder why Adidas wasn't using cryptocurrency!

Devils Librarian
03-21-2018, 10:02 AM
It is crazy that people think shoe companies are the problem. I've heard local sports radio hosts say that the FBI/Adidas investigation is a bigger scandal than UNC's. No, it's not. Shoe companies give talented kids money in hopes that down the road they will rep the company. UNC-CH's coaches promised players and their families a top tier education that they knew the athlete was not prepared to undertake and that the university had no intention of providing. It is soul crushing that the NCAA cries "Foul" at the former while remaining silent about the latter.

SupaDave
03-21-2018, 10:11 AM
You get a chance to do what you love and Nike is willing to give you a check so you can live comfortably? Just do it. Bags has not only been successful with his youth teams but also has been great locally in Durham with the surrounding communities and with a local basketball league. It's great to have him back in Durham. They've done giveaways, cookouts and all kinds of stuff. ANYONE can do it - but can you get the talent? Some folks just happen to have the talent.

Because if they REALLY wanted to go there they could just write a whole article on IMG academy - which somehow is a school that's also owned by a sports agency. Probably not enough click bait for the writer though...

howardlander
03-21-2018, 10:34 AM
I read the article. This is the nature of capitalist systems. Money flows to value. Trying to stop every possible way top recruits can benefit from their talents is not only impossible but morally wrong. Marvin Bagley III has and will generate enormous amounts of revenue for some shoe company, Duke, Coach K and eventually himself and his family. So Nike decided to pay his dad to run a basketball team in the hope that the shoe company will eventually be them. Sounds about right to me.

Howard

pamtar
03-21-2018, 10:45 AM
This doesn't read like a hit piece. Even if it did, I don't think there's anything to worry about. To me it's a moderately well-written article that supports the fact that the NCAA's amateurism rules are a joke. Nike and friends are finding legal ways to pay players while the NCAA and the schools it represents continue to exploit them. Kudos to Nike. And good luck to the NCAA if they ever try to vacate our wins from this year. If Mark Emmert values his $2 million salary then this is a can of worms he probably doesn't want to open.

CDu
03-21-2018, 10:45 AM
I read the article. This is the nature of capitalist systems. Money flows to value. Trying to stop every possible way top recruits can benefit from their talents is not only impossible but morally wrong. Marvin Bagley III has and will generate enormous amounts of revenue for some shoe company, Duke, Coach K and eventually himself and his family. So Nike decided to pay his dad to run a basketball team in the hope that the shoe company will eventually be them. Sounds about right to me.

Howard

Yeah, what Nike did with Bagley Jr is essentially the same thing that Washington and later Missouri did with Michael Porter (father of Michael Porter Jr and Jontay Porter): essentially "hired" him with the hopes that it will lead to his talented son(s) joining them. In both cases, Porter Jr followed his dad in committing to said school (he was released from his commitment to Washington when his dad was fired). At Missouri, Porter is getting paid more than $1 million total over the next 3 years to be an assistant coach. Nike's deal is a bit less binding in that - unlike those colleges - there is no guarantee that Bagley signs with them down the road.

luvdahops
03-21-2018, 11:15 AM
Yeah, what Nike did with Bagley Jr is essentially the same thing that Washington and later Missouri did with Michael Porter (father of Michael Porter Jr and Jontay Porter): essentially "hired" him with the hopes that it will lead to his talented son(s) joining them. In both cases, Porter Jr followed his dad in committing to said school (he was released from his commitment to Washington when his dad was fired). At Missouri, Porter is getting paid more than $1 million total over the next 3 years to be an assistant coach. Nike's deal is a bit less binding in that - unlike those colleges - there is no guarantee that Bagley signs with them down the road.

I have to believe K and staff did pretty thorough due diligence on Marvin and family prior to making a scholarship offer. K seems to pretty knowledgeable around how the basketball "pipeline" works at all levels, so would be very surprised if Duke were caught flat footed on this.

WVDUKEFAN
03-21-2018, 01:01 PM
I have to believe K and staff did pretty thorough due diligence on Marvin and family prior to making a scholarship offer. K seems to pretty knowledgeable around how the basketball "pipeline" works at all levels, so would be very surprised if Duke were caught flat footed on this.

Well said.

Troublemaker
03-21-2018, 01:16 PM
I have to believe K and staff did pretty thorough due diligence on Marvin and family prior to making a scholarship offer. K seems to pretty knowledgeable around how the basketball "pipeline" works at all levels, so would be very surprised if Duke were caught flat footed on this.

Yep, I'm sure we did an in-home visit with the Bagleys at some point, for example. We're not caught by surprise here.

flyingdutchdevil
03-21-2018, 01:34 PM
Popular amateur sports is a complete oxymoron.

For the love of God, just compensate the players/families. These loop holes are just #$%$ing crazy.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
03-21-2018, 02:25 PM
Popular amateur sports is a complete oxymoron.

For the love of God, just compensate the players/families. These loop holes are just #$%$ing crazy.

No shoe company ever tossed me free schwag at my rec league games. That's TRUE amateur athletics.

- amateurism died a slow death, once television contracts hit the billion dollar mark

Tom B.
03-21-2018, 03:16 PM
For the love of God, just compensate the players/families. These loop holes are just #$%$ing crazy.

And maybe don't create a system where talented young athletes who are good enough to earn a professional paycheck are barred from the most significant market for their talents and virtually forced to spend a meaningless year in college. (And yes, I believe that Duke does more than many programs to make sure its players, even the OAD guys, become part of the community. I say "meaningless," though, because even if they're model members of the Duke community, in any sane universe, they could just go straight to the pros without having a one-year layover at Duke.)

As for the Oregonian article, it essentially boils down to "Grassroots basketball is shady." To which most people probably would respond, "Duh." And therein lies the problem for the Oregonian -- everyone already knows that grassroots basketball is shady, so that story won't sell. But add a few nuggets about a Duke star that are just suspicious-looking enough to support some innuendo about possible shadiness, and suddenly it's juicy.

There's another undertone to the story that bothered me. So you've got a kid who's a star athlete, and his family's been hit hard by the recession -- lost jobs, foreclosure, etc. And along comes a shoe company and tells the kid's dad, "Hey, we'll pay you to run one of our grassroots programs." And they're supposed to do what? Say no to that lifeline? Remain poor and struggling to satisfy some antiquated notion of amateurism that was conceived by 19th century aristocrats who never had to worry about not being able to pay the mortgage? That's what the story seems to imply, and it's an implication that I'm not comfortable with.

Reddevil
03-21-2018, 03:31 PM
And maybe don't create a system where talented young athletes who are good enough to earn a professional paycheck are barred from the most significant market for their talents and virtually forced to spend a meaningless year in college. (And yes, I believe that Duke does more than many programs to make sure its players, even the OAD guys, become part of the community. I say "meaningless," though, because even if they're model members of the Duke community, in any sane universe, they could just go straight to the pros without having a one-year layover at Duke.)

As for the Oregonian article, it essentially boils down to "Grassroots basketball is shady." To which most people probably would respond, "Duh." And therein lies the problem for the Oregonian -- everyone already knows that grassroots basketball is shady, so that story won't sell. But add a few nuggets about a Duke star that are just suspicious-looking enough to support some innuendo about possible shadiness, and suddenly it's juicy.

There's another undertone to the story that bothered me. So you've got a kid who's a star athlete, and his family's been hit hard by the recession -- lost jobs, foreclosure, etc. And along comes a shoe company and tells the kid's dad, "Hey, we'll pay you to run one of our grassroots programs." And they're supposed to do what? Say no to that lifeline? Remain poor and struggling to satisfy some antiquated notion of amateurism that was conceived by 19th century aristocrats who never had to worry about not being able to pay the mortgage? That's what the story seems to imply, and it's an implication that I'm not comfortable with.

You must spread some Comments around before commenting on Tom B. again.

You sir, have nailed it. Unfortunately, the anti-Duke folk will focus on the "who" of this story instead of the substance.

Hingeknocker
03-21-2018, 04:06 PM
And maybe don't create a system where talented young athletes who are good enough to earn a professional paycheck are barred from the most significant market for their talents and virtually forced to spend a meaningless year in college. (And yes, I believe that Duke does more than many programs to make sure its players, even the OAD guys, become part of the community. I say "meaningless," though, because even if they're model members of the Duke community, in any sane universe, they could just go straight to the pros without having a one-year layover at Duke.)



This is well-said and 100% true, but I also want to point out that even if every player were allowed to enter the *most* significant market for their talents, they should still be allowed to be compensated within the *second-most* significant market, too. (And the third-most, and the fourth-most, and so on.)

RPS
03-21-2018, 05:48 PM
No shoe company ever tossed me free schwag at my rec league games. That's TRUE amateur athletics.

- amateurism died a slow death, once television contracts hit the billion dollar markSeconded.

My son left college ( a Nike school) with memories, a degree and an enormous amount of gear....

Kfanarmy
03-21-2018, 08:57 PM
And maybe don't create a system where talented young athletes who are good enough to earn a professional paycheck are barred from the most significant market for their talents and virtually forced to spend a meaningless year in college. (And yes, I believe that Duke does more than many programs to make sure its players, even the OAD guys, become part of the community. I say "meaningless," though, because even if they're model members of the Duke community, in any sane universe, they could just go straight to the pros without having a one-year layover at Duke.)

As for the Oregonian article, it essentially boils down to "Grassroots basketball is shady." To which most people probably would respond, "Duh." And therein lies the problem for the Oregonian -- everyone already knows that grassroots basketball is shady, so that story won't sell. But add a few nuggets about a Duke star that are just suspicious-looking enough to support some innuendo about possible shadiness, and suddenly it's juicy.

There's another undertone to the story that bothered me. So you've got a kid who's a star athlete, and his family's been hit hard by the recession -- lost jobs, foreclosure, etc. And along comes a shoe company and tells the kid's dad, "Hey, we'll pay you to run one of our grassroots programs." And they're supposed to do what? Say no to that lifeline? Remain poor and struggling to satisfy some antiquated notion of amateurism that was conceived by 19th century aristocrats who never had to worry about not being able to pay the mortgage? That's what the story seems to imply, and it's an implication that I'm not comfortable with.
Seriously. Shoe companies are buying parents to get their kids...hmmm.

Newton_14
03-21-2018, 10:00 PM
No shoe company ever tossed me free schwag at my rec league games. That's TRUE amateur athletics.

- amateurism died a slow death, once television contracts hit the billion dollar mark"

See, here's the thing though in my view. I will start by saying I know most people will read this post and think it is stupid and simple-minded. Maybe it is, but I am going to share it anyway and then I guess, duck and hope to not get hit with the rocks being thrown.

The problem in my view is the definition of "amateur". Just hear me out here please. If this is stupid and simple-minded then so be it. Here is my definition of "amateur". To me, if a shoe company pays a kid while he is still in high school, that most definitely does not make the kid a pro or "Non-Amateur" in my opinion. A "Professional"/"Non-Amateur" to me, is a player that has played in a professional league drawing a salary. Dennis Smith was most definitely an amateur all of last year while playing for NC State. Smith had never played in the NBA or G League or European League, etc. You get the point.

College Basketball Players are all amateurs. None of them have played in professional leagues. So a kid that right out of High School goes into a professional league be it the NBA/G League/Overseas, and plays a couple of years and decides he should have gone to college and wants to enroll at State U as a freshman. Well sorry dude, you can't because you are a former Pro and therefore not eligible to play in college because college is for amateurs (my definition) and you gave up your amateur status when you went Pro.

A shoe company giving a kid money for whatever reason doesn't magically turn him into a professional player in my eyes. It is just plain ignorant to not let these kids get whatever endorsement money they can get be it Adidas wanting to "sponsor" Dennis Smith the High School/College Player or if say the local car dealership wants to give Javin $50k for allowing them to put him on their billboard to help them sell more cars.

This is all insane. Not allowing each and every kid on the roster to get whatever they can get from companies (not boosters or fans). The own stipulation is the company cannot pay the kid to go to a specific school. I don't know how to police that aspect but I would hope smarter people than I could figure it out.

Anyway that's my position and view on all this current madness.

Mark "Putting on Kevlar and jumping into the ditch to take cover from the incoming bullets" Newton. 14.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
03-21-2018, 10:50 PM
... Good analysis parsing the definition of "amateur" cut for space...




This is all insane. Not allowing each and every kid on the roster to get whatever they can get from companies (not boosters or fans). The own stipulation is the company cannot pay the kid to go to a specific school. I don't know how to police that aspect but I would hope smarter people than I could figure it out.

Anyway that's my position and view on all this current madness.

Mark "Putting on Kevlar and jumping into the ditch to take cover from the incoming bullets" Newton. 14.

Usually I am all for getting pedantic with words, as anyone trying to claim a "lock" in the bracketology thread will tell you. But this time, I don't care so much. You can call it "amateur," or "unpaid," or "anything outside the NBA" - college basketball is broken.

The rest of your post, declaring insanity and asking for smarter minds to figure it out... Well, I agree one hundred percent.

I am not a fan of "the team that can find the most loopholes wins," if that's built in an unfair system.

Basketball and football need to be rebuilt with new ideas from the ground up. The amount of money circulating around these young men is positively absurd.

niveklaen
03-22-2018, 02:31 AM
No shoe company ever tossed me free schwag at my rec league games. That's TRUE amateur athletics.

- amateurism died a slow death, once television contracts hit the billion dollar mark

Sam Gilbert came along long before the big TV contracts. The thing that the ameteurism rules were written to prevent was the booster owned business paying players to attend a particular school. If companies can pay players then schools will buy rosters like UCLA did. I wish/hope that there is a way to allow players to receive money from legitimate sources like the shoe companies while preventing the corruption that festered under the wizard of westwood.

(Note that I consider the shoe companies legit sources to the extent that they dont really care where the player goes to college, just that he will sign with them as an adult - ie they dont determine winners and losers of the college game.)

JasonEvans
03-22-2018, 07:23 AM
Some really good ideas in this thread -- side note: is it just me or does it feel like all of our threads about scandal and the such end up being "here is how we should fix college basketball."

I would merely add that the moment we make paying players (or allowing endorsements, which seems the most logical) legal and above board, the system becomes better. Right now, we have a situation where both the players and the folks who want to get money to them are forced to sneak around and hide their actions. When everything is out in the open, the system is bound to be more fair and safer.

-Jason "I am sure this thread will now become pages and pages of ideas about how to fix college hoops... and that is fine. The Bagley stuff in the Oregonian story will gladly be pushed aside" Evans

rsvman
03-22-2018, 11:20 AM
"

....

The problem in my view is the definition of "amateur". Just hear me out here please. If this is stupid and simple-minded then so be it. Here is my definition of "amateur". To me, if a shoe company pays a kid while he is still in high school, that most definitely does not make the kid a pro or "Non-Amateur" in my opinion. A "Professional"/"Non-Amateur" to me, is a player that has played in a professional league drawing a salary. .....

This isn't a rock, or anything close to it, but I don't think we can all just make up our own definition of what "amateur" means. There should be a definition that everybody can agree upon. Once upon a time, I played a lot of amateur golf. I was assured that if I took cash (any amount whatsoever) as a prize for winning a golf tournament, I would no longer be an amateur. I was allowed to take credits to the pro shop, but only up to a certain dollar amount that everybody had agreed upon. If I was offered anything beyond that and I accepted said offer, I would no longer be considered an amateur and would no longer be able to compete in amateur tournaments. I didn't have to join a professional tour to lose my amateur status. All I had to do was be PAID for playing the sport. I would not be a "pro," but I would also no longer be an "amateur."

Bluedog
03-22-2018, 04:25 PM
Since we're talking about paying the player's again, thought I'd share the clip of where Coach K is asked about it again (teed up to the time of the question):

https://youtu.be/5IOvGlf34uI?t=10067

One thing that stands out to me that isn't really mentioned anywhere is the fact that there HAVE been "DRAMATIC" changes in the last few years to give players a TON more once they're on campus than they used to be given. Nobody seems to acknowledge this. The fact that player's now get stipends above and beyond previous full rides wasn't a big new's story for whatever reason. Coach K's words:
"Kids get a lot right now. In the last 3 to 4 years. I'm not sure how much research you've done in it. But, if you would compare what kids get today to 3 or 4 years ago, it's a dramatic improvement. Dramatic. Not small, dramatic. And, um, again, I'd like for them to take a look at before you get them, to make sure the kid and his family are afforded the oppportunity to max out, like anybody else in our country, what talent will give you."

My take is that Coach K basically wants them to be able to get compensated prior to stepping foot on campus based on whomever wants to give them money (minus the schools), but that the school/NCAA provide sufficient benefits to them once they're on campus (perhaps those entities providing money beforehand would be able to continue to do so). And that, in general, the definition of amateurism needs to be re-worked. Obviously, Coach K also thinks there shouldn't be a requirement to be one year removed from high school before being drafted as well.

porkpa
03-23-2018, 05:29 AM
There are many ways to beat the stupid and unfair system.
One of them, that Duke and I am sure many other schools have practiced is to get a wealthy alumnus to move the kid's family and provide a well paying job for one or more of the player's parents.
Nothing wrong with it insofar as I can see. Just so long as the parent(s) are actually being employed and not just receiving a regular check.
But you can bet your bippy, that there is no way that this would have happened if the kid was not an excellent basketball player.

jv001
03-23-2018, 08:23 AM
This isn't a rock, or anything close to it, but I don't think we can all just make up our own definition of what "amateur" means. There should be a definition that everybody can agree upon. Once upon a time, I played a lot of amateur golf. I was assured that if I took cash (any amount whatsoever) as a prize for winning a golf tournament, I would no longer be an amateur. I was allowed to take credits to the pro shop, but only up to a certain dollar amount that everybody had agreed upon. If I was offered anything beyond that and I accepted said offer, I would no longer be considered an amateur and would no longer be able to compete in amateur tournaments. I didn't have to join a professional tour to lose my amateur status. All I had to do was be PAID for playing the sport. I would not be a "pro," but I would also no longer be an "amateur."

We hold a charity golf tournament to raise money for our Christian School. A young man that's on a local college golf team who used to be a member of our church wanted to play in the tournament. He was told that he could play but not accept a cash prize if his team won. So, he played and his team won first place but he wasn't allowed to accept his share of the prize money. However it was a moot point because all four players donated the winning cash to the Christian School. GoDuke!

TKG
03-29-2018, 07:00 AM
http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/duke/article207007143.html

The link above was taken from this morning's Raleigh News & Observer. The report from The Oregonian, referenced in the article, claims that Bagley's family received improper benefits from Nike.

freshmanjs
03-29-2018, 07:05 AM
http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/duke/article207007143.html

The link above was taken from this morning's Raleigh News & Observer. The report from The Oregonian, referenced in the article, claims that Bagley's family received improper benefits from Nike.

- The article does NOT claim the family received *improper* benefits
- This has been discussed several times on these boards
- This has been reported in the press many times over at least the last year

CDu
03-29-2018, 07:06 AM
http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/duke/article207007143.html

The link above was taken from this morning's Raleigh News & Observer. The report from The Oregonian, referenced in the article, claims that Bagley's family received improper benefits from Nike.

This has been discussed in detail in another thread. It is unlikely to be a problem for Duke, as it is far from clear that the benefits were improper.

Furthermore, even if it were an eligibility problem, we didn’t win anything this year. So we wouldn’t have to forfeit anything of interest.

HereBeforeCoachK
03-29-2018, 07:06 AM
I saw this last night....and I'm not sure how it could be a problem for Duke. This goes back to 2015-16....was not hidden.....and the NCAA cleared MB3 in 2017 to play for Duke.

It just points to the problem that college BB faces being squeezed between the AAU/Nike/agent scum on one end and the NBA's One and Done rule on the other. Like K and Boeheim and others have said, NCAA hoops faces some problems, but some of the basic foundational problems are not the doing of the NCAA.

Troublemaker
03-29-2018, 07:09 AM
Here's the recent thread on it: http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?41726-A-Shot-At-Bagley

The N&O just rehashed the Oregonian article.

CameronBornAndBred
03-29-2018, 07:16 AM
Rehashed or not, for whatever reason the story has picked up steam again. It was on the front page of MSN yesterday. I hadn't paid attention before, but I read it, and it seems to me the only one it could be a problem for is Nike. Not Marvin since he didn't get paid, not Duke, and not his family since they made money performing services. It's not like his dad got handed cash for doing nothing.
Big names (Bagley and Nike) will draw interest, so people will look into it and report what they find. It looks like they found squat.
This was the article on MSN. (Redirected from USA Today.)
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaabk/report-bagley-family-received-direct-benefits-from-nike-sponsorship-of-aau-club-team/ar-BBKO7lZ

Owen Meany
03-29-2018, 07:29 AM
Jonathan Givony
@DraftExpress
·
18h
Congrats to the Oregonian for trying to shame Marvin Bagley and his family. Contrary to what some professor told them, what they and Nike did was/is totally legal, and has been happening for years with other top prospects. I guess only the NCAA is allowed to profit off his talent.


This was not a secret and most certainly cleared by the NCAA with all I's dotted and t's crossed. There is no way that virtually everyone would have recruited Bagley otherwise. And, contrary to how many feel about the shoe companies, I can't possibly imagine Nike risking its reputation, dominant industry position, or the wrath of coaches and players by jeopardizing the eligibility of a player. The gain of 1 more athlete to its massive list of endorsers would pale in comparison to the immense risk. I read an article earlier that talked about Marvin Sr.'s heavy involvement in his son's career and it mentioned that many coaches actually preferred the situation because there were no handlers or outside influences. You knew that you were dealing only with Marvin and his family.

CDu
03-29-2018, 07:39 AM
Rehashed or not, for whatever reason the story has picked up steam again. It was on the front page of MSN yesterday. I hadn't paid attention before, but I read it, and it seems to me the only one it could be a problem for is Nike. Not Marvin since he didn't get paid, not Duke, and not his family since they made money performing services. It's not like his dad got handed cash for doing nothing.
Big names (Bagley and Nike) will draw interest, so people will look into it and report what they find. It looks like they found squat.
This was the article on MSN. (Redirected from USA Today.)
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaabk/report-bagley-family-received-direct-benefits-from-nike-sponsorship-of-aau-club-team/ar-BBKO7lZ

Yeah, as I mentioned in the other thread that talked about this same story, this situation is essentially the same thing as colleges hiring the dads of recruits to be assistant coaches (like happened with Missouri and Michael Porter Sr). Nike basically paid Bagley II to run his club ("AAU-ish") team in in their EYBL, with Bagley III as the star player. It's actually less shady (from the school perspective) since it was Nike and not a school, and it had no bearing on any school choice. Now, obviously Bagley II only got that money because Bagley III is awesome. Just like Porter Sr only got hired because Porter Jr is awesome. But good luck proving impropriety in either case. Both guys were paid for actual work.

TKG
03-29-2018, 07:41 AM
Jonathan Givony
@DraftExpress
·
18h
Congrats to the Oregonian for trying to shame Marvin Bagley and his family. Contrary to what some professor told them, what they and Nike did was/is totally legal, and has been happening for years with other top prospects. I guess only the NCAA is allowed to profit off his talent.


This was not a secret and most certainly cleared by the NCAA with all I's dotted and t's crossed. There is no way that virtually everyone would have recruited Bagley otherwise. And, contrary to how many feel about the shoe companies, I can't possibly imagine Nike risking its reputation, dominant industry position, or the wrath of coaches and players by jeopardizing the eligibility of a player. The gain of 1 more athlete to its massive list of endorsers would pale in comparison to the immense risk. I read an article earlier that talked about Marvin Sr.'s heavy involvement in his son's career and it mentioned that many coaches actually preferred the situation because there were no handlers or outside influences. You knew that you were dealing only with Marvin and his family.


Thanks for the clarification OM. I should not have been surprised that the Raleigh paper would try to smear K and Duke with a flimsy article. Thought the N&O had learned a lesson from the lacrosse hoax. Guess not.

JasonEvans
03-29-2018, 07:51 AM
Of course, if something untoward were uncovered, it would mean that Duke would have to forfeit all the ACC and national titles won by Bagley...

Sorry, too soon?

tbyers11
03-29-2018, 07:53 AM
Of course, if something untoward were uncovered, it would mean that Duke would have to forfeit all the ACC and national titles won by Bagley...

Sorry, too soon?

Yes, too soon.

Because CDu said the same thing a few posts up :p




Furthermore, even if it were an eligibility problem, we didn’t win anything this year. So we wouldn’t have to forfeit anything of interest.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
03-29-2018, 08:07 AM
And, contrary to how many feel about the shoe companies, I can't possibly imagine Nike risking its reputation, dominant industry position, or the wrath of coaches and players by jeopardizing the eligibility of a player. The gain of 1 more athlete to its massive list of endorsers would pale in comparison to the immense risk.

I agree with the rest of your post, but I don't see shoe companies having any qualms whatsoever about an athlete's eligibility. For whatever reason, the shoe scandal that picked up steam the last few months got people upset with coaches and players and player families, but no one seems upset with Adidas.

We are in this weird morality vortex where we have a paternalistic view about how players "should" be in school, and "should" stay in school, while also wagging our fingers at them if the accept anything from any of the many entities that are trying to get close to them.

It is a really weird scenario.

Anyway, you acknowledge that your view of the shoe companies is different than most, so I won't harp on it other than to say I disagree.

MCFinARL
03-29-2018, 08:36 AM
Yes, too soon.

Because CDu said the same thing a few posts up :p

So, actually, too late.

Bay Area Duke Fan
03-29-2018, 11:52 AM
Of course, if something untoward were uncovered, it would mean that Duke would have to forfeit all the ACC and national titles won by Bagley...?

Or the PK80 championship?

devildeac
03-29-2018, 06:48 PM
Just saw this 10 minutes ago on-line from the Noose and Disturber:

http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/duke/duke-now/article207327084.html#emlnl=Breaking_Newsletter

From Duke:

"We and the NCAA evaluated his amateur status and determined him to be eligible," Todd Mesibov, Duke's compliance director, said about Bagley in a statement.

Bull City Proud
03-29-2018, 07:15 PM
Just saw this 10 minutes ago on-line from the Noose and Disturber:

http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/duke/duke-now/article207327084.html#emlnl=Breaking_Newsletter

From Duke:

"We and the NCAA evaluated his amateur status and determined him to be eligible," Todd Mesibov, Duke's compliance director, said about Bagley in a statement.


This article is an attempt to discredit Bagley and Duke. Meanwhile no stories on Fake Classes U.

duke96
03-29-2018, 11:38 PM
This has been discussed in detail in another thread. It is unlikely to be a problem for Duke, as it is far from clear that the benefits were improper.

Furthermore, even if it were an eligibility problem, we didn’t win anything this year. So we wouldn’t have to forfeit anything of interest.

Not a big fan of suggesting that the key consideration if we were in fact
playing ineligible players is what titles we would forefeit. It would be really sad to see our program proven to be playing ineligible players, let alone the star player on our team. Thankfully it appears this is not the case.